I recently visited the home of an 88 year old friend of the family. He showed portraits of himself and his wife in their youth. Something about the photographs really leaped out at me. It seems like they were similar to other portraits that I have seen from the 1930's, 40's, etc., but this was really the first time I have really looked at older photos since taking an interest in photography a few years ago. Anyway, I don't know if it is the black and white, or the conservative dress, or the fact that this was a nice-looking couple in their younger days, but the portraits seemed different and "better" than what I have seen in a lot of recent wedding portraits, as an example. But the portraits seemed very similar to those of my grandparents from the same era and before, and similar to others that I have seen.

Am I imagining a difference? Has portrait technique, such as poses and lighting changed over the years? Maybe it is that the photographers were trying to keep it simple in terms of poses, lighting, and background? I am curious as to why the portraits leap out at me.

I am interested in hearing your comments.

You may just have a personal preference for more traditional work. Take a look at this photographer's style:
http://www.wancketstudios.com/

Well most of those photos are heavily retouched by hand and/or colored. I'd say there's often a beauty in their artifice. The lighting is often more sculpted than a lot of what's done today and shooting large format certainly can help.

Taking a large format photo like that with the hot lights they used then is a meticulous exercise, no wonder the results are often very nice. You don't put all that work into making something sub-par.

RDKirk wrote:
You may just have a personal preference for more traditional work. Take a look at this photographer's style:
http://www.wancketstudios.com/

Very regal stuff. If I had marble walls and tapestries I'd totally go for it

I visited the site at the link. It's way too kitschy for me. While it had some cues from old style photography, it wasn't nearly as refined and subtle as the better work from years gone by.

There was a photographer where I live who worked from the 20's into the 50's. He was head and shoulders better than the other studios. He took my mother's wedding portrait and people remark how lovely they find the photograph.

Mr. Warlick had a studio on the second floor of a building downtown. It had a gorgeous north light, as did many of the studios of the day. I think using a north light window contributes a lot to the "look" that we admire.

How many of you have seen or used an Adams Retouching Machine? It's essentially a tilted light table. The negative was held in place by a "doughnut" and the negative platform vibrated with a random pattern. You'd "dope" the negative with retouching fluid to give the surface a tooth, then use pencils just lightly touching the neg to add density. It was a skill all studio portrait photographers (or usually their spouses) were expected to have. Photoshop is much easier.

dmacmillan wrote:
..... How many of you have seen or used an Adams Retouching Machine? It's essentially a tilted light table. The negative was held in place by a "doughnut" and the negative platform vibrated with a random pattern. You'd "dope" the negative with retouching fluid to give the surface a tooth, then use pencils just lightly touching the neg to add density. It was a skill all studio portrait photographers (or usually their spouses) were expected to have. Photoshop is much easier.

I'll never complain about layers again. Here is one for sale on Craigslist in LA.

There is a ying/yang relationship between the contrast of the light sources used for portraits and the contrast of the recording medium. B&W film can be developed in a way that renders even high contrast lighting, like a face in direct sun with dark shaded eye sockets, in a way that looks soft and natural. Try to do the same with a digital camera with half the dynamic range and the same face with correctly exposed shadows will have no detail in the eyes.

Over the years as portraiture shifted from longer range B&W films to shorter range color emulsions and then to transparency film which has even less dynamic range than today's digital sensors photographers learned to compensate for the greater contrast of the recording medium by using less contrast with their lighting scenarios.

That explains why feathered reflectors and dishes replaced focused fresnel sources when portraiture moved to color negative film and why umbrellas, soft boxes and diffusion panels of every increasing size became the norm when most commercial photography intended for print reproduction was done on easily scannable transparency film which had shorter dynamic range than color negative emulsions.

The way to mimic the look of the 30's and 40's B&W era with today's digital equipment is to strike a similar ying/yang balance between the contrast of the sensor and the light source. The B&Ws are characterized by the distinct placement of light which is a result of using a small controlled key light source, combined with a buttery-smooth transition of tone between shadow and highlight which resulted from the ability of the film to handle high contrast and the way photographers of that era used fill.

With digital the way to handle contrast is to control the contrast range of the scene by overlapping the key light source creating the highlights over even fill. Starting in a dark room you'd first want to use the fill source to evenly light the scene until the darkest shadow detail in the scene is recorded by the sensor at whatever f/stop was chosen for DOF. Once the entire scene is lifted to the point where the sensor can record detail in the darkest shadows with only minimal noise, turning on the off axis key light will create the highlight pattern which defines the 3D shape. The areas not hit by the key light remain the same with whatever level of detail and perceptual softness that was defined at the outset with fill. Then its just a matter of positioning the key light for the desired highlight pattern and raising its intensity until white textured highlights (like a white towel held near the face) are 1/3 stop below clipping.

What controls the contrast and apparent softness will be the foundation of fill, more so than the size and distance of the key light modifier. Where some err in trying to duplicate the 30's look is by using large, very diffuse key light modifiers which don't have the directional control that the older sources did. Many of the old B&W shots have what I call for want a of a better metaphor, an "iron fist in a velvet glove" look: a rich full range of tone from dark to light combined with the smooth transitions both in the shadows and highlights. The rich range of tone is created by controlling where the light doesn't go, something that is difficult to do with some the huge modifiers used today and the ill-founded assumption by some that bigger is better.

Starting with fill from the direction of the camera ( the only position it can reach everything the camera sees and records) mimics the ability of the B&W to handle contrast by instead reducing the contrast of the scene. Direct sources such as fresnel lights, just the reflector or a reflector with a metal grid will tend to make the highlights the key light create more contrasty than the B&W era (i.e. the highlights will look "hotter" or more harshly specular because of the shorter range of the sensor records the tonal transitions in the highlights differently. The direct controlled look of the key light can perhaps be duplicated best with a small softbox with a egg-crate grid which offers the needed directional control of the key light with the ideal balance of diffusion to match the perceptual effect of the B&W era film/lighting combinations in the highlight transitions.

The difference in contrast characteristics of digital will also affect the look of natural lighting vs. what B&W negatives are able to achieve. One of the initial set-up tests for the Zone System suggested by Ansel Adams was to put a familiar face in direct sun then find the combination of actual film speed and negative development time which would render the face with a full range of detail from highlights on the forehead to shaded eye sockets in a way that fit a print made on #2 paper. Whatever film speed and development time it took to produce that result then became the baseline for "normal", with adjustments made from it for scenes with more or less contrast. Try the same thing with just ambient light with digital or color film and the result will be dark eye sockets because the recording medium can't handle the contrast. That's why its necessary to use a supplemental, non-overlapping source of fill with color film and digital to alter the scene contrast, when possible, to match what the sensor or film/print combination can record with detail. With digital learn to control the fill independently from the highlight source and you can handle the contrast and record a full range of detail.

Chuck

I have a portrait of my Mom, who passed away 7 years ago now, that was made in the late 1940s. I think it was done in her senior year of high school. Beautiful work, meticulously lit and posed, and I'm very grateful to have it.

These days, the style is cross-processed "PJ". Yawn.

I saw a photo posted in the People forum awhile back, from some girl's senior photo session. She appeared to be standing in an alley behind her house, with bare trees, telephone poles and trash cans in the background. She was dressed in wrinkly clothes, hair not brushed, not smiling - just leaning up against something with her hands in her pockets. The shooter used one of those cross-processing filters in post, so it looked like any of a number of faded snapshots my wife has in a shoebox in the bottom of our closet.

Of course, in true FM fashion, everybody was blowing blue sky and sunshine up the shooter's arse, making soft cooing noises about how great it was.

I wonder if that girl's children are going to be grateful to have that photo 7 years after she passes away?

JM2¢
Mike

Chuck and Mike,

Your combined comments summed things up nicely for me. I'm partial to classical portraiture and feel the art and techniques of that type of work are being replaced all too often by a harsh, edgy look ("PJ" as Mike said). I feel I rarely see the discipline that characterizes good portraiture anymore.

I've read Chuck's ideas many times and have recently been approaching both portraiture and product photography in the way I think he is describing above. I work with the fill first (usually a small umbrella) which I place slightly off the camera axis depending on how I generally want shadows to fall and then use a gridded light or a small softbox for a character light, usually within the cone of the fill light.

Des

cgardner wrote: There is a ying/yang relationship between the contrast of the light sources used for portraits and the contrast of the recording medium. B&W film can be developed in a way that renders even high contrast lighting, like a face in direct sun with dark shaded eye sockets, in a way that looks soft and natural. Try to do the same with a digital camera with half the dynamic range and the same face with correctly exposed shadows will have no detail in the eyes. ...[More]

Yet another excellent post, Chuck.


I "grew up" on classic lighting, and I like the look. Nowadays if I talk about Paramount lighting, butterfly lighting, and Rembrandt lighting I get a lot of "Huh?" looks from people, but I think something's missing from a lot of the new portraits I see, and I think classic lighting is a good part of it.

I've been thinking about this a bit recently, and I think I'm going to experiment with using low-power ring flash for frontal fill, and then a harder light or two for sculpting. Setting the fill to just lift the shadows out of blackness, and then setting the key to 1/3 below clipping makes a lot of sense, at least as a starting point.

PhotoDes wrote:
I work with the fill first (usually a small umbrella) which I place slightly off the camera axis depending on how I generally want shadows to fall and then use a gridded light or a small softbox for a character light, usually within the cone of the fill light.

Des
Interesting approach. I can make an argument that what you're calling your fill light is not what I would define as a fill light.

I can't think of any professional photographer, including myself, who sets the fill before the main. The key light defines the lighting for the photo. I use the fill to adjust my ratio to set the mood of the lighting. What that ratio is will be determined by the medium I'm shooting. The ratio might be different between B&W film, color negative film, color transparency film or digital, but the effect will be the same.

I prefer not to use a fill light at all, instead I use reflectors and the bigger the better. My favorite is an 8'x8' flat that can be rolled into position. If I still need to flatten the ratio, I might aim a head at the flat. It's not usually necessary because of the way I feather my main.

If I do use a head for fill, I usually put the biggest possible modifier (box or umbrella) on it.

That's just the way I work, though. Horses for courses. I much prefer to shoot natural light with a little help from reflectors if needed.

dmacmillan wrote:

Interesting approach. I can make an argument that what you're calling your fill light is not what I would define as a fill light.

I've debated this myself, but I used to set the key light first, etc, and my fill light now is serving almost the same purpose as it was before. It's just that I'm giving it a bit more thought in advance as to how it will contribute to the photo. Maybe it's a distinction only in my mind.

I prefer not to use a fill light at all, instead I use reflectors and the bigger the better. My favorite is an 8'x8' flat that can be rolled into position. If I still need to flatten the ratio, I might aim a head at the flat. It's not usually necessary because of the way I feather my main.

I often use reflectors, but certainly don't have anything like the flat you use. I still use them but, for me, I seem to get more control with a fill light and not necessarily a big one.

This isn't what you expect to see, but here's a shot I took today. I used the fill to get the background, book edges, etc the way I wanted them and then added the gridded key light (very narrow angle grid). The gridded light was at the edge of the "cone" of the umbrella. I hope it serves to illustrate my setup concept.

dmacmillan wrote:
PhotoDes wrote:
I work with the fill first (usually a small umbrella) which I place slightly off the camera axis depending on how I generally want shadows to fall and then use a gridded light or a small softbox for a character light, usually within the cone of the fill light.

Des
Interesting approach. I can make an argument that what you're calling your fill light is not what I would define as a fill light.

I can't think of any professional photographer, including myself, who sets the fill before the main..

Actually David Hobby of Strobist.com fame has been promoting the set your fill first technique for a while now.

I prefer to do it that way as I feel I have more of a feeling as to what the fill is doing in relation to any ambient light before I set my main. Of course when there is no ambient light in the photo it's just a different order of layer building, instead of starting with the most obvious layer of light you start with the most subtle.

So for something like this it's just a matter of a different working order:


Where as for something like this I'll set my on axis fill first to control the shadows after I set my exposure for ambient.


wait... we were talking about lighting from the 40's!

What makes fill necessary is the technical limitations of the camera sensor; having a range shorter than most scenes which are photographed outdoors or indoors when one light is used off axis.

Starting with the fill is simply a learning exercise to better understand the cause and effect of how it interacts with the key light. FIll can either work together with the key light (i.e. when key overlaps even fill) or fight the key light (i.e. when key and fill are placed on opposite sides). There's no right/wrong, good/bad in either technique, either way they combine to produce a different effect.

The situation to be aware of and avoid is when a shadow created by the fill crosses a shadow created by the key light because that creates a dark void with no light at all, except what is reflected from nearby highlighted areas. Its easier for a beginner to spot when crossed-shadow lighting is likely to occur by starting with the fill and seeing where it is creating shadows, then checking those same areas when the key light it added.

Its very simple to compare the effects. Short light a face with fill near the camera, then keeping the key light and face the same move the fill around to the shadow side. When the fill moves back behind the nose the shadow side of the face will start to shade the fill in the lower areas like the base of the nostril, smile lines, corners of the mouth resulting in very dark shadows (because there is no fill). What is more flattering is a judgement call you can make for yourself.

Chuck

PhotoDes wrote:
This isn't what you expect to see, but here's a shot I took today. I used the fill to get the background, book edges, etc the way I wanted them and then added the gridded key light (very narrow angle grid). The gridded light was at the edge of the "cone" of the umbrella. I hope it serves to illustrate my setup concept.
Des

That's a lovely, well lit photograph. You did a good job explaining your rationale. The approach is secondary to results. Good job!

The approach PhotoDes used was a key factor to being able to achieve the desired results easily.

When you start with placing the key light then add fill, getting the desired ratio and correct exposure becomes a game of cat and mouse. The key light is actually overlapping the fill, so adding more fill to the shadows will also add an equal amount of light to the highlighted areas requiring an adjustment to exposure.

If you start by setting fill to reveal the desired amount of shadow detail, then add the key light the process is no less creative, you simply are addressing the technical limitation of the medium first. Once the shadow end is taken care of getting correct exposure is simply a matter of raising intensity of the key light until its just below clipping in the highlights, something more accurately done using the camera playback which will reveal when and where clipping is occurring and account for factors such as lens flare a hand held meter can't measure.

Its not a new or radical concept, just a revision of the old photographic axiom "Expose for the shadows...." Back when negative film was used technically savvy professional photographers would mount their fill lights on the ceiling to bounce off the back wall of the studio to simulate the effect of natural fill outdoors. Because negative exposure is based on the shadows, keeping the subject the same distance from the wall of fill meant the exposure was always the same. Google "Joe Zeltsman" and read his tutorial where he explains how he used that configuration.

With digital its necessary to expose for the highlights, but its equally important to pull the shadow detail above the threshold of noise the sensor creates. Once the highlights are exposed correctly in a digital file the left side of the camera histogram is a rough guide for evaluating what is happening in the shadows (the graph should be just kissing the left side, not piled up and running off) but the human eye can better discern shadow detail visually, and its easier to perceive when only the fill is illuminating the scene.

You can get to the same results many different ways - horses for courses and all that -- but given the choice I take the easiest route based on understanding the underlying technology which is producing the image. As technology changes its necessary to adapt techniques.

Chuck

The key light is actually overlapping the fill, so adding more fill to the shadows will also add an equal amount of light to the highlighted areas requiring an adjustment to exposure.

This is a point that has to be repeated. Chuck, you've given the process the thought necessary to hit all the required considerations.

Although we are indeed primarily concerned about the exposure of hightlights--because they are the absolutely unrecoverable solid wall--as a matter of workflow, it's better to first set the shadow level then the highlight level.

Speaking of photography from the 30's and 40's ... I found the site below where the photographer does a very good job (IMHO) imitating Hurrell. I still like it and have even found a few teenagers who want something similar for their Senior Portraits.
Best,
Andy

http://www.lutzimages.com/

P.S. Joseph P. Lutz is a made-up name, as are the details in the biography section.

superb studio lighting, des and jammy.